Talk:Maratha Confederacy/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Maratha Confederacy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

History of South Asia

I've noticed that this article is linked to using the History of the Indian Subcontinent box, but does not include it on this page. I'd add it, but I'm not very good at editing layout.--YGagarin 19:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

As you have instructed, I have added the link for History of South Asia in this page, in the SEE ALSO section. If you need any more help with editting, please let me know.--Vande75 05:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I had meant more specifically this, but I don't know how to properly position it within the article.--YGagarin 05:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Why, the page does appear on the template! Fifth from bottom. I had included it a long time ago. ImpuMozhi 12:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

But the template is not in the article.--YGagarin 16:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Maratha Military

A section on the Maratha military is needed. TathD 11:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations

This is one of the most flowery articles I have seen Please down play adjectives, provide citations with page numbers, maintain neutrality.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 05:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is better than ur kannada nonsense which u drop everywhere. Poor u,u r getting nervous because truth is nearing!! Vishu123 06:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please keep your conversation to the matter. This page clearly lacks citations and seems to have been constructed more in the "Amar Chitra Katha" (Children stories) format. This flowery language is not acceptable to wiki neutral standards. Please provide required citations. You have removed my valid "English language" citations. This is unethical.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 15:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

U should be the last one to talk about ethics. Ur kannada nonsense even more bad than Amar chitra katha. Ur glorification of kannada empire and dragging other empires to ur nonsense if laughable. I will be looking at ur flowery language in ur other articles too. Vishu123 16:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

People should mind their language and shouldn’t go overboard while expressing their views, especially, Dineshkannambadi. The emergence of Maratha Empire, in those times of tyranny, was the need of the hour. Also, the way Maratha Empire emerged was nothing short of a miracle, considering the stronghold of the Sultanates during that period. Maratha Empire was the result of extreme courage, hard work, strength, hunger for freedom, nerve to do anything for the master and many sacrifices by the people of Maharashtra. After the early efforts of Shahaji Maharaj, Shivaji Maharaj founded the Maratha Empire and grew it from nowhere to a formidable force. Maratha Empire under Shivaji Maharaj and afterwards, had stood it’s ground, and repulsed any attack which many times than not, outnumbered Maratha forces greatly in terms of resources, soldiers and artillery, in fact, the Marathas were the ones who would succeed in extending their boundary further. Thus, all the ‘peacock terms’ are part of the article on the Maratha Empire and Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. It would be really nice if people could help in improving the article instead of commenting on it's shortcomings. ThanksKesangh (talk)

Reading the above comments I realise that even today the flaws in our society that allowed the British to rule over India are blatantly visible. I agree that no kingdom is without its share of oppressions. Even the great Greek and Roman empires had their flaws. Accept the valid flaws. Just because one site (whether government or not)says that the Marathas were oppressive dont accept it. Clearly there is a need of a more educated writing about the Marathas. There needs to be more Encyclopedic content rather than references to various websites. Sule Rohan 17:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Rohan Sule

I came to this page purely out of curiousity, but now that I've seen the kind of comments that Vishnu & others have put up, I'm convinced that the dispute was valid. I must ask for Vishnu's racist comments to be reported to the Wiki panel. This is not acceptable. He is disgracing Indian unity on the web in front of the whole world!!! Dineshkannambadi, all the best. Need any help let me know. I personally doubt if American University webistes can be classified as biased or jingoistic, but people will believe what they want to believe. Rohan Sule, well said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aman Zaidi (talk • contribs) 08:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Expansion of section , Maratha empire coinage at Indian coinage

Editors can help by improving the section Maratha empire in the article Indian coinage.-- Vishal1976 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.252.189 (talk) 07:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why His Majesty

I think the honorific "His Majesty" is inappropriate in usage in the article. As explained above, all Maratha kings were honoured with the term 'Chhatrapati' and hence there is no need to prefix a 'His Majesty' (or 'Her Majesty') before the names of the rulers. It is also quite anachronistic as the term "His Majesty" is of a period after the fall of the Maratha empire and is British in its roots. Nikhil Umesh (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Tagged Maratha empire-->Relations with South India

The reason I tagged this page is because it fails to open up all issues concerning the Marathas. It only talks of their greatness. The page focusses on how the Marathas (including Shivaji) fought for the hindu cause, but does not mention the ransacking of temples, harrassment of Kannada Hindu people in north Karnataka. I am putting in all that info over the next couple of hours. This is from a valid source and the referencd author and his book will be provided. The world needs to see to History in true light, not just hthe positve side.

Dinesh Kannambadi

Hi , It would be very nice if u get some relaible sources for ur claims.Plz dont enrage us by such statements which has nas no backings.Plz note that fanatic sources are present everywhere,if u want to stick to Mr.Kamat we might get few such sources too.Thanks.Mahawiki 13:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The above are some sources for the plunder of neighbouring states by Shivaji and Marathas in general. I am sure if we search we will find more. Sarvagnya 16:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The fourth link I added now is where the unregistered user seems to have taken his stuff from. Do not try to mislead by saying that his/her writeup was already included in the first three links I had provided Sarvagnya 19:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, so the question arises about the alleged plunder of neighbouring states by Marathas. The above user has mentioned three sources, to name a few of the many, which claim Maratha plunder of their regions. These claims apart from being of speculative nature are backed by jingoism. The last 2 links provided are obviously from some jingoistic website. Dr. S.R. Deshpande in his Marathi book "Marathyanchi Manaswini" describes how a few people from neighbouring states of Maharashtra developed this tendency to criticize the Maratha Empire as plunderers, loose-knit, ransackers, etc. just to fuel their regional jingoism. More often than not these claims come from leaders, which itself explains why. Eminent historian Babasaheb Purandare has refuted the "baseless claims" made by some jingoistic Rajput websites and forums about the alleged plundering and discrimination against others. The point is everyone can find flaws with every other kingdom and Empire of India. Perhaps, the most important reason why some people feel like bashing Marathas is because the Maratha Empire was more synonymous with Marathi language, very much unlike other ancient kingdoms of India who patronized other languages of their territories as well. However, such things neither have astring of truth in them nor do they serve any purpose. The "History of the Marhattas" by Grant Duff as well as Bombay University's "Maratha History - Seminar Volume" both considered seminal and impartial works on Marathas fail to mention any such things. So, these so-called "claims" serve only one purpose - Rake up jingoistic passions at the cost of negative portrayal of a particular Empire. I hope the air has been cleared.

And I am removing the "history" presented by an anonymous user since most of it is picked from the above links so generously provided by the registered user. Thank you

If the first of the links I provided had not been from a government website, you would probably have probably labelled that information merely jingoistic too. Just because you dont like it, doesnt mean something becomes a lie, especially in the face of so many sources claiming that the Marathas committed atrocities wherever they set foot(outside Marathi speaking lands). Every non-Marathi source speaks of these atrocities, be it in Karnataka or orissa or bengal or gujarat, chattisgarh, rajasthan... Everbody is a liar and a jingoist and Marathas alone are the saints.
I have given these internet links just for 'prima facie' evidence/purposes. It is not difficult to find references to any of these atrocities committed in history books written by acknowledged historians. It is just that I do not have the time right now to go to the library and look up the history books for Marathi history. But I hope somebody works on this to include valid history and show history for what it is. Including this information will make the article more complete and take it further towards FA status. Thank you. Sarvagnya 19:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, people should mind their language while contributing to even the Discussion page. I read few days back that the Marathas looted places like Surat, which should be brought to notice and only the positive points shouldn't be given. What? This is utter non-sense. If the Marathas didn't loot places like Surat, then from where does one expect the Marathas to get wealth to build the Maratha Empire. There weren't any banks or such kind of organisations to provide people with money!! During the initial years of Shivaji Maharaj, the Maratha kingdom was still a young kingdom, which needed wealth and resources. Marathas under Shivaji Maharaj and afterwards didn't harm any woman, child or innocent person during their campaigns and that's what is important. There have been only handful of Empires in history, which are idealised today, and Maratha Empire is one of them. Infact, today we are very proud about the campaigns of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and other Maratha leaders, which were carried with great planning, execution, excellent strategic mobility and immense courage. ThanksKesangh (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC).

--N R S | ^T/_M\^B 18:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Tags should not be put on articles where info is missing. As it is this article was never tagged as disputed, nor has a history of edit wars. So putting the tags is highly inappropriate. If you have any information which you feel needs to be added, feel free to add the information. However, I must warn that if the information is controversial, disputed, speculative, derogatory or POV, it is highly imperative if you discuss it on the talk page first. Remember, what to edit and how to edit it is your prerogative, but unfair editing is not tolerated in Wikipedia. So, it's upto you to do what you want.

--N R S^{(talk to me,mail me or award me a barnstar)} 16:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There are some points which are really need to be clarified before discussing the realations of Maratha's with South India —Preceding unsigned comment added by V sumdi (talk • contribs) 15:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Mayuresh Bhagwat (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Hi Sarvagnya, about the link "http://www.sc.edu/uscpress/2004/3544x.pdf#search=%22The%20Marathas%20in%20western%20India%20rose%20as%20a%20fierce%20Hindu%20opposition%20to%20Mughal%22" & "Marathas plunder of Jodhpur and Marwar (Rajasthan)" both are from University of South Carolina and is based on the view of the Britishers so I think you need to get something more valid and dont argue on some baised website, probably an authentic document would be from Gujrat Government websites. About the Chhattisgarh link....at the bottom of the page it reads ""Chhattisgarh - A State is born", Sanket Bhopal" so again based on a single book and even the author is not the someone reputed. I would like to add that if that was the case, it would had reflected atleast somewhere in the book "Discovery of India" by Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru - First Prime Minister of Union of India.[User:Mayuresh Bhagwat|Mayuresh Bhagwat]] (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Phaltan Naiknimbalkar Rulers

Nimbalkar ( निंबाळकर ) is one of the clan of Maratha supposed to be originated from Pawar Clan. Origin of their name is supposed to be arose due to their native village Nimbalak present in Phaltan tehsil, Satara district, Maharashtra, India.

They were the rulers of Phaltan region from the period of Yadav Kingdom or before. They served as one of the Maratha chief under Deccani Sultanets like Adilshshah, Nizamshah also King Shivaji's period,Peshwa period,Under Nizam and until British rule's end. The title of Naik Nimbalkar is equivalent to Raje Nimbalkar. Nimbalkars held title Naik,Sirdeshmukh,Sardar and other commonly used Maratha Honours.

Main (Family branch) City of Nimbalkar is Phaltan. They also have their presence in Maratha Dominated regions. Nimbalkars held title Raje, Naik, Sirdeshmukh, Sardar, Sarkar. Nimbalkar has their relationships with all the prominent Maratha families. One also should remember that King Shivaji's first Wife Saibai was from Nimbalkar family; morever,Deepaabai-the wife of Maloji Bhosale( Shivaji's Grandfather) also from Nimbalkar family. King Shivaji's Daughter Sakhubai Married with Phaltan's Prince Mahadji Nimbalkar. Nimbalkar Notable's

   * Shrimant Padakla Jagdev Parmar.( Father of Naik Nimbaraj), Rajput Ruler and Pioneer Maratha of This Clan,Descendant of Parmar(Pawar) clan of Dhar.
   * Shrimant Nimbaraj Naik Nimbalkar(Nimbaraj Paramar),Established in Mahadeva Range of Satara at Nimbalak,Founder of All Nimbalkar Surname and City of Glory Phaltan.

He Was Administrator of Phaltan's 84 Villages Pargana.

   * Shrimant Bajaji Rao Naik Nimbalkar,King Shivaji's Relative and Prominant Maratha Sardar of Maratha as well as Sultanets.
   * Shrimant Hanmant Rao Naik Nimbalkar,famous Maratha who assisted Sambhaji Raje Bhosale and combated Many Wars for Maratha Empire.
   * Shrimant Sultanji Naik Nimbalkar,The Ruler of Kharda Sansthan and Pioneer Khardekar.He Secured all Nimbalkar's Governements in Maharashtra.
   * Shrimant Khanderao Nimbalkar,Maratha Leader in Panipat War(1761).
   * Shrimant MudhojiRaje Naik Nimbalkar,Notable Nimbalkar and Father of Modern Phaltan.His deeds can be Compaired to Only Shrimant Sayajirao Gaikawad of Baroda and Shrimant Rajarshi Shahu Bhosale of Kolhapur.

Some Intresting

Nimbalkar families are spread all over Indian region.

Main locations associated are 1.Phaltan & Tehsil's Villages, 2.Bhalawani 3.Kharda, 4.Usmanabad,Karmala,kalamb .

Bhalawani:These Naiknimbalkar are the second nimbalkar empire after phaltan.Vikramsing Naiknimbalkar & Rajendrasing Naiknimbalkar are ancestors of this family

Khardekar (Maratha) are the Naik Nimbalkars - branch's surname - As this family is from Kharda - decedants of Sultanji I(HaibatRao) Raje Nimbalkar (First SarSenapati of - Chatrapati Shahu (the Grand son of Great Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj). Sultanji II (HanumantRao) RajeNimbalkar with Father and Clan Member Raja RaoRambhaji RajeNimbalkar(Who was Rular of Karmala/usmanabad)joined Nizam against Peshwa - as part of politics. The trio changed History in Maharashtra and were highly influential in Maratha regional politics.

As per the Marathi modi writing on second door of the Kharda Fort and Urdu writing on the First Door - the description is - Translated in English -

-Shaban - 25 Fasli 1153 - Monday : 1st September 1746AD During The Days of Fortunate end of Raja Sultanji(HaibatRao) Nimbalkar of the Dignity of Amir and Governer, The Deshmukh, Deshpande, Muquaddam, Seth and Mahajan etc... of the Village "Shivthan" Pargana Jamkhed, Sarkar of AhmedNagar.. The Fort is Named "Sultan Durg" in the above mentioned Village was Renewed.-

Sultanji also built temple of Khandoba in BID. Mahadaji Shinde's (Gwalior) Mother was in Relation with this Family and one wife was from Nimbalkar Family.

Rao Sultanji Built Rajapura (AhmadNagar) Darwaja at BID - This Inscription is available in urdu on RajaPura Darwaja of the BID city - inscribed as - "13 Julus (i.e.- From Tuesday 11 Oct 1730 to Thursday 24 June 1731 AD -) During the Caliphat of Muhammad Shah - Raja Rao Sultanji nimbalkar, Jahagirdar of the Pargana of Bid, built this Ahmadnagar Darwaja."

Since Nimbalkar Family was wel established in the period of Muhhamd Tughlakh (Yeda Mahmud)(Around 1200AD); They claimed themselves decendants of the Parmar Rajput with Vashistha Gotra. The family had relations with all the Rajput Families settled in Maharashtra. Some of the Settled Rajput Families are - Taur (This Family is decendant of Tomar/Tanwar Rajputs) of Ambad (Dist. Jalna)Region, Solankhe (The Clan is descendant of the Gujrat Solanki Rajputs) of Majlgaon(Dist Bid); Chauhan - Chavan of Parli (Dist Parbhani). Nimbalkar's were jahagirdar of The "Gangthadi region". In Mughal period so these families provided worriors to Nimbalkars. Nimbalkars do have family relations with these families. These relation sprang from last 400-800 Yrs.

   * Once 300,000/- Hone revenue region is commanded by the family before "Raja Maharaj Shiv Chatrpati's" period so the area was from south of the Aurangabad to the Umarga and from Konkan to the Hingoli - no one can claim that there are no other Nimbalkars.

   * Sultanji Naik Nimbalkar - SarSenapati of Shahu I - Joined Nijam, played politics and secured all Nimbalkar's and Many others families Jagirs and helped Sahu's prime minister - Peshwas in number of ways to spread in north, South as wel as in east. In East - Nagpur region there are Nimbalkars settled in the period of Raghuji Bhosale and were instrumental in Maratha Empire.

   * Like Sayajirao Gaikwad of Baroda,Shreemant Mudhoji Naik Nimbalkar done many notable works in field of Education and other Social Work.

   * Royal Race of the Nimbalkar :http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/p/phaltan.html

   * Today's Phenomenon :

Nimbalkars as in history still mentioning their leadership and service to the community by playing active role in politics.

1.Shree Malojiraje Naik Nimbalkar. Ex.Cabinet Minister,Maharashtra gov. 2.Shree Ramraje Naik Nimbalkar. Minister Water Resource Krishna Valley Maharashtra Government;Present Gadi-Ruler(Representation) of Phaltan. 3.Shree Pawanraje Nimbalkar;

4.Shree Hindurao Nimbalkar;

5.Shree Dadaraje Khardekar/ Naik Nimbalkar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.165.195 (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Contradictions

I tried to edit the page, but it was deemed vandalism and undone. The information on the page contradicts other pages made by the same group! E.g. the extent of the Sikh Kingdom vs the Maratha Kingdom during the same time period. We all know Marathas never reached Punjab, so why do the maps show otherwise? 90.194.255.235 (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Bmayuresh (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Is that so? I think you need to go through the history books again. Thanks to Peshwa Raghunathrao, the Maratha Empire at its zenith expanded upto Attock now a part of Afganistan.Bmayuresh (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Legacy Section

I have removed the Legacy section for several reasons. One, in order for something to be a "legacy", it has to affect or be passed down to successive generations. The items listed in this section were not passed down, and as such, are not a legacy. Furthermore, most of the points are highly subjective or outright opinions, with only one item actually being cited (and the citation being a page reference in a book). Also, the addition of a "Legacy" section in this page seems more an exception than the rule; most pages for past empires do not have such a section. A "Legacy" section should really be reserved for the vast empires who had a significant effect on history and the modern era i.e. the Roman Empire. 94.173.12.152 (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I am re-adding the Legacy section. I've made some changes to the text that was earlier posted. However, I agree that some more work needs to be done there. Legacy does not mean that it should leave an impact on the World History. Maratha Empire changed the destiny of India and did help stabilize South Asia by nurturing religious harmony and tolerance. Not only socially but also military achievements of Maratha Empire are worth mentioning. For ex the Blue Water Navy a strategy still in use by all major Naval powers in the world. Or the capabilities of Peshwa Bajirao I whose military tactics are still studied upon by most Military Organizations including American Army. I understand that the Brits do like to show down anyone and everyone who has been a pain to them, but that doesn't mean that calling great Admirals like Kanhoji Angre as pirates and now by questioning the Legacy of Maratha Empire would change the course of History or undo the facts. Before you try to remove the portion again, I would like to request you to kindly go through the facts about the Maratha Empire and if that doesn't please you I would be honored to host you here in India to experience the change it brought about in the Indian society & politics. Bmayuresh (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Map changes

does anyone of you know how to change map, because i feel that the maps dont show Maratha empire full capacity, maratha maximum captured till peshawar in 1758 they also captured kashmir in 1758 but none of them are showed. Similarly how can we show the tribuatry of Maratha because mysore kingdom was defeated both times by maratha and then hyder ali(father of tipu) accepted maratha superiorty , similarly at one point of time(before british arrival) maratha were rulers of orissa and collected tax from Nawab of bengal for bihar and bengal(both west bengal in india and bangaldesh) similarly nawab of oudh was once defeated by maratha , second time nawab of oudh made frantic calls to british india for help after which empire of oudh passed onto british and it was not under control of musalmans , the tributaries of maratha empire must be shown otherwise it gives a wrong picture, all indian muslim empires be it mughals,nizam of hyderbad,mysore kingdom,nawab of oudh and bengal and rohilla afghans were defeated by Maratha and similarly oudh was under british protection but the map posted under new section dont show anything muslims lost whole oudh to british empire in 1773 and before that maratha have plunder nawab of oudh and captured allahabd and kora and aligarh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.29.208 (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Achievements of Maratha Empire

The article provides a very good profile of the rulers and minsiters of the glorious and mighty Maratha empire that dominated south asia for more than a century and a half. However, their achievements and good deeds are either mentioned in bits and pieces or missing and not clearly highlighted.

Can we include a separate section listing the achievements of the empire also?

Pradeep hebbale (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained edits by some members

Lets discuss Maratha Empire article here...

It is clearly visible that users : Bangalorebar , Dbkasar and AnwarInsaann continuously editted the article without giving any explanaion in the form of edit summary.

Some members are involved in vandalism and tryinh to under-represent the Maratha Empire.

Have a look at this edit by Bangalorebar. The main map was changed without any explanation. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maratha_Empire&diff=465776201&oldid=465445037 .

Dbkasar deleted the complete section of 'brief history' without any explanation.

AnwarInsaan deleted Afghanistan. However it is clearly given in the sourced content that Marathas had captured Peshawer and Attock. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maratha_Empire&diff=466110384&oldid=466054521 .

Peshawar and Attock are in Pakistan not Afghanistan

Banglorebar deleted a large content from the beginning, again without any explanation. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maratha_Empire&diff=466992121&oldid=prev

This Part has not been "deleted", it has been shifted below, please check. The introductory para is always kept brief AnwarInsaan (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

AnwarInsaan changed the image of Maratha soldier again without any explanation. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maratha_Empire&diff=466053490&oldid=466052677

The new image gives a more detailed view of a Maratha Soldier

I visited this article one month ago. But today when I saw it, I was quite sure that this article has become a victim of very cleverly-done vandalism.

What does wikipedia rule says :

User shud give the edit summary.

But hardly any summary was given in these edits. Content was deleted, map got changed, images got changed and the article was deliberately squeezed.

Being a wiki-editor, I have the right to revert these un-explained deletions, image changes and vandalism that have been done deliberately to under-represent the Maratha Empire.

Now I will wait for some more time.. Either the editors should explain these edits, which I feel are vandalism, or their edits will be reverted.

Change your threatening tone, WP is meant for constructive edits by everybody, nobody owns a particular page here, you can not revert the edits without consensus. AnwarInsaan (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I welcome you as a new user on WP, If you want to add or delete something on WP please discuss the editions with every user, you can intimate the users by leaving a message on their talk page. AnwarInsaan (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Blue-water navy?

Mentioned in the legacy section. Blue-water navy refers to a navy that is capable to operate in open ocean. Can someone put some source?

Also, this article is quite large. But it has very few citations.

--Iball (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"The Maratha Empire is also credited for developing many important ports like Pune, Baroda, and Indore. " Baroda is understandable, but inland cities like Pune and Indore are "Ports"??? -- 115.242.61.21 (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Nearly unreadable

This article needs rewriting. It reads like translated with Bablefish. Poliorketes (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing

ok i have noted above observation of 'edit summary' .hereafter i will be adding it. dbkasar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbkasar (talk • contribs) 13:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Chronology

someone is again and again putting yashwantrao holkar before peshwa.He must understand chronology.HOlkar was in 19th century.dbkasar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbkasar (talk • contribs) 12:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Name Change

How about changing of name of this article to Marata Confideracy from Maratha Empire.it was a confideracy of semi autonomus states each led by a Peshwa all inspired by Shivaji Maharaj one of the greatest kings ever.an empire is when all the territory is in control of one king,here you have all the territory in control of Peshwas inspired by Shivaji Maharaj,so it is better to call it confideracy than empire.I might be wrong but please correct me if im wrong.Uu228 (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Changing the name means moving the page. In order to move the page you click on the move button at the top of the article. It looks like Maratha Confederacy is the generally accepted name (in encyclopedia Britannica at least) so you shouldn't have too much opposition. Before you make the move, let people comment to see if someone has a contrary opinion for a couple of days.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Bmayuresh (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)It started as an Empire and ended as a Confedracy. However, during almost its entire tenure it had a single dynasty rule ie the house of Bhosales. The Peshwas were de-facto rulers and the term "Peshwa" itself means "Prime Minister". After death of each Peshwa the Bhosale family appointed the next Peshwa. Also the Peshwas or the other Sardars never declared themselves as kings till the 19th century hence the Empire actually broke at the dawn of the 19th century wherein it had completed over a century rule and hence the name is correct. Before making such statements or suggesting such actions it would be good if you guys research more on the Empire and not just read the pages about it in Britannica and Wikipedia, as there is lot more to it than available online.Bmayuresh (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Query about a name

In Maratha Empire#Ramchandra Pant Amatya Bawdekar, the name Adnyapatra is written in Devanagari as आज्ञापञ, which says Ājñāpaña. Which form is correct ('tr' or 'ñ')? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Yashwantrao Holkar.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Yashwantrao Holkar.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Yashwantrao Holkar.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Marathas 1758.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Marathas 1758.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Marathas 1758.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

First appearance of Maratha soldiers

According to Jacques Weber, professor of modern history specialising in India at the University of Nantes, the first appearance of "Maratha soldiery" was under Shivaji's father in 1635 when Bijapur was besieged by Shah Jahan - see [[2]] Mogul Splendour: The successors of Akbar (1605 - 1707) Jacques Weber, in A History of Modern India, 1480-1950.

We have Siege of Bijapur, but it is a different siege, and I am unsure how to fit this information into this Empire article. Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Article protected

This article has been protected from editing for one day to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

wrong fact bhosale era?

it is to inform that shivaji started a new era ,but did not bothered to give his name or his surname .it was named as 'rajyabhishek shaka".It is also called as 'Swasti shri '.So to say this era as 'bhosale era'than the era of kings or royal period is not a fact of history .it does not sound a work of any scholar.please mention true facts .edit accordingly .thank you--dbkasar-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.252.237.10 (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A New High Quality Map! Anyone Interested?

Hello everyone! So about a year ago I got a request on my talk page to do a high quality map of the Maratha Empire. Now I have made some good maps of India in the past. I.E, the Mauryan and Mughal Empire Maps:

That being said, is anyone on here interested in me doing a high quality map of the Maratha Empire? If so, please let me know either on here or my talk page and I will gladly have it done! Cheers! Kirby (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I would certainly be interested. It would be great if you can prepare a high quality map Amit20081980 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Sikh?

Someone edited the article saying that "Marathas and Sikhs" are credited for ending Mughal rule in India. If at all any credit goes to Sikhs, it should be mentioned on the page of Sikh Empire with a credible reference. Not on this page. Amit20081980 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Revival of Hinduism under Marathas

The article does not clearly mention the impact of Maratha Confederacy on India (in terms of its culture and religion). I recommend adding a new section called Impact on Hinduism which can provide information about revival of Hinduism in India. The rise of Hindu Marathas certainly have a bearing on today's religious demographics of India. Below can be a good read and serve as a reference as well.

[[3]]

[[4]]

[[5]]

Amit20081980 (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Confederacy

The Marathas were a vicious Confederacy with separatist and expansionist motives, not an Empire. [[6]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.2.160 (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Every notable history book uses the term Maratha Confederacy...it clearly is the correct therm of reference. [[7]] [[8]] (182.182.40.192 (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a place to pass your personal judgement but is meant to present facts, Martha Empire is famous as MARATHA EMPIRE.Wachoviadeal (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Says Wachoviadeal, passing his personal judgement. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

attention for contributers

Please contribute more to give a wholistic picture and do not show contribution only of one family .It was an empire and hundreds of brilliant commanders have fought and died . do not quote for a single personality , rather give quotes on general character , bravey and achievements of the Maratha people at large . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devbk (talk • contribs) 15:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This seems related to the "discreet fragments" I've added to expand the Barbara Ramusack quote. An overemphasis of the "empire" characterization allows for only an emperor / imperial dynasty, whereas a "confederacy" allows a mention of more, including commanders, regional rulers and other individuals. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Maratha Confederacy/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

The emergence of Maratha Empire, in those times of tyranny, was the need of the hour. Also, the way Maratha Empire emerged was nothing short of a miracle, considering the stronghold of the Sultanates during that period. Maratha Empire was the result of extreme courage, hard work, strength, hunger for freedom, nerve to do anything for the master and many sacrifices by the people of Maharashtra. After the early efforts of Shahaji Maharaj, Shivaji Maharaj founded the Maratha Empire and grew it from nowhere to a formidable force. Maratha Empire under Shivaji Maharaj and afterwards, had stood it’s ground, and repulsed any attack which many times than not, greatly outnumbered Maratha forces in terms of resources, soldiers and artillery, in fact, the Marathas were the ones who would succeed in extending their boundary further. Thus, all the ‘peacock terms’ are part of the article on the Maratha Empire and Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. It would be really nice if people could help in improving the article instead of commenting on it's shortcomings. ThanksKesangh (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 08:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 23:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Kings Maratha descent

Anyone who has information about the descendants of King Mustradha Sri Maheswari and King Kalai Sri Bhunawa Maharashtra? It is understood that the two of them, they went into the trade envoy Malaya (Malaysia) in the 18th century, in the area in 1786. While King Mustradha Sri Maheswari into Malaysia in 1822 and developed his seed in Penang to Kuala Lumpur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad Hafiez (talk • contribs) 06:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Maratha Empire Period

In the article, the period of Maratha Empire is shown from 1674 to 1818. To my knowledge, in the year 1674, Shivaji Maharaj was crowned as Chhatrapati ("sovereign") of the new Maratha kingdom. But actually he conquered the first fort Torna in the year 1645 at the age of 15. See Shivaji#Conflict_with_Adilshahi_sultanate So with this timeline, the Maratha Empire period should start from 1645.

To justify this, let us compare the period of British Raj in India i.e. Company rule in India. It is given as East India Company on the Indian subcontinent from 1757 to 1858. This is because East India Company won the first Battle of Plassey in 1757, when the Nawab of Bengal Sirajuddaulah surrendered his dominions to the Company. This is the first win in India. That is why the period is shown from 1757 to 1858. See the first para of Company rule in India

The same rule should be applied for Maratha Empire and it should be changed to 1645 to 1818 in all the related articles. Yogee23 (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User: Yogee23. It needs to be changed to 1645. Coolgama (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

British Raj only started when the governing of India was taken over by British government and Victoria assumed the title of Empress of India. Prior to the it was the company rule. By taking over Torana , Shivaji laid the foundations of the future Maratha Kingdom. As to whether the Maratha power was formally an empire or not raises a lot of issues. Yes, Shivaji did crown himself Chhatrapati but his grandson Shahu accepted the title of Mansabdar from the Mughal emperor. Later, the Marathas at various times acted as king makers in Delhi but always acted in the name of the Mughal emperor.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I am referring to Company rule in India article only. As per the article in Wikipedia, the East India Company period given on the Indian subcontinent from 1757 to 1858. This is because East India Company won the first Battle of Plassey in 1757, when the Nawab of Bengal Sirajuddaulah surrendered his dominions to the Company. This is the first win in India. That is why the period is shown from 1757 to 1858. Earlier to 1757, there was hardly any existence of British company rule in India. It was only in few pockets like Mumbai etc. The same rule applies to Shivaji. Shivaji had won major portion of West India by 1660 by wining various wars against Adhilshah, Nizamshah and Aurangjeb by that time. Just for information Yogee23 (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Jonathansammy, you have put the year of the beginning of the Maratha Confederacy as 1674 in your last edit. In some places in this article, it says that it began in 1645. Please let me know what year we should have in the article - it should be the same everywhere, right?—Dona-Hue (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

We should stick to 1674 as the beginning and leave a footnote (As I have already done) to mention the young Shivaji winning the fort in 1645.In the 1660s he also signed up with the Mughal emperor to be in his service.1674 was really the date when he made a break with other ruling entities and that should be the start.The start date is can of worms.As mentioned in one of my previous posts, Shahu got rights to Sardeshmukhi or right to collect taxes in the Deccan from the the Moghal empire.In a formal sense, does it make him a vassal of the Moghals?It would be good to have opinions of other editors on this matter.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Jonathansammy, I have no idea about this. What is worse is that we need reliable sources for everything here. Please do what you feel is right!—Dona-Hue (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Extent of Maratha Empire under Baji Rao

The article says:

Bajirao is credited with expanding the Maratha Empire tenfold from 3% to 30% of the modern Indian landscape during 1720–1740. [...] [The Concise History of Warfare By Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery, p.132]

A user has changed it to 70%. I have found an article saying that the extent was two thirds of the Indian subcontinent, though this is a blog: [9]. So which is correct? What does the source say? (I wasn't able to find the book online.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

~~Blogs are unacceptable on Wikipedia. If a user has changed 30% to 70% when the source says 30%, please be bold enough to revert It!~~—Dona-Hue (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were a novice/rookie, but you are actually an admin; please do whatever you feel is right! Please also let us know about the map in the introduction (please read the matter in the previous section)!—Dona-Hue (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

casteist remarks by admin of this website

whoever is the admin of this cite , he seems to be a mischievous person in that he is misleading 'maratha ' identity as a ' Hindu identity which s not historically correct , can he say that madari mehetar , siddi hilal , ibrahim khan etc were not marathas ? secondly why he is bent upon mentioning chitpavan' caste here , if you want to mention caste of peshwa as chitpavan , then moropant pingle was a brahmin , shivaji was 96 clan royal , bajiprabhu was CKP and many more of different catses .why you want to show chitpavan identity here ,please correct it ,at least speak some truth and do not be a kind of third class historan . if you wish you can discuss here ---open intellectual challenge --- note my email dbkasar@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.245.35 (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is edited by thousands of users. Please provide reliable online references for what you are saying and we will try to incorporate them. Click here to read about the guidelines for reliable sources!—Dona-Hue (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Art section?

There should be an additional section mentioning the art/architecture and culture of the era. Some things that come to mind are Trimbakeshwar temple, many of the buildings in Varanasi were built by the Marathas, and they've built a good share of palaces as well. It'd be interesting if some paintings were posted as well and a general run-down of clothing, customs, holidays and the like that were prevalent in the empire. Bajirao1007 (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

wrong facts

Please note that the maratha power was in the hands of shahu till his death 1749 , after his death nanasaheb was given certain power by shahu . Secondly peshwa control certain section of army entrusted by shahu and not the entire army , do you mean that kanhoji angre and raghoji bhosale were working under peshwa ? no denial of pehwa ' role but do not hijack other clans's achievement , or alternatively have one more page for peshwa separate from maratha empire where please show that shivaji was working under peshwa ??? is it a good proposition to over enthusiastic champion of peshwas ? --- dbkasar . please prove the facts given by me as wrong , i will not comment again . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.245.35 (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Prejudice

I want to add this here:-

The National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), the apex organisation that provides advice and support for the improvement of school education has been avoiding mentioning that most of the Indian subcontinent was ruled by the Marathas before the British East India Company conquered it in History books in India according to historian Sadanand More.^[1]

References

^ "NCERT cuts short Shivaji's journey in std VII textbook". DNA India. Pune: DNA India. May 3, 2013. Retrieved August 9, 2017.

Any objections? - Dona-Hue (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

IP 2600:1001:B016:7DE7:DDD6:F2FB:B202:1E5F,

you had 3 days to object, why did you not object earlier instead of trying to start an edit war now?—Dona-Hue (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Vincent Arthur Smith

@Kautilya3, Sitush, and Utcursch: can you please help regarding this? This 19th century author has clear British colonial bias of Oriental despotism - is clearly not reliable anymore.

Vincent Arthur Smith described Sivaji as "a fierce robber chieftain, who inflicted untold misery on hundreds of thousands of innocent people, Hindus and Muhammadans alike," and "using all kinds of cruelty and treachury to to attain his wicked ends." Smith described the Maratha Empire as having "never served any good purpose or conferred any benefit upon India, except in so far as it gratified Hindu sentiment" and "was the rule of professed robbers."^[1]

Thomas.W please explain how VA Smith is a reliable source? (2600:1001:B008:460E:A025:8EEC:8978:2D26 (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC))

Please let me know if anyone has any objection to me removing VA Smith. If not, it should be removed. (2600:1001:B008:460E:A025:8EEC:8978:2D26 (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC))

References

^ Vincent Arthur Smith (1919), The Oxford History of India, Oxford University Press, page 436

Change for Maratha Empire Map

File:Maratha 1320.jpeg includes Maratha vassals at their height. It should be used as the main photo for the Marathas at their height. Bajirao1007 (talk) 11:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

What is the source of this map? Is it backed by any scholarly or verified source? If not, it can't be added. It is a POV by you. Shimlaites (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It was based on the map from "Historical Atlas by Raman, Ranjoy ; L.K. Publications Delhi, 1951." however that map like the one used as of now doesn't include Maratha vassals. Mines did. Bajirao1007 (talk) 08:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a source for the map, you are just taking a name, please provide a URL citing the map. Then it can be discussed which map is more appropriate. Shimlaites (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:India_18th_century.JPG#mw-jump-to-license Bajirao1007 (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That map is already on the page, doesn't need a replacement. Shimlaites (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Someone from the I.P. 74.94.52.197 is repeatedly replacing the Maratha confederacy map of 1760 in the lead, removing "File:India1760 1905.jpg" and putting "File:Maratha 1320.jpeg" in its place. Can we have an admin control that?-Dona-Hue (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

It's still not vandalism. It's a content dispute— though I agree that it should be discussed. El_C 09:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I called it vandalism because an acceptable map, which has stood the test of time is being removed and a self made map is being put in its place repeatedly-Dona-Hue (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Why not make this as the main map in the introduction? It certaily displays a larger area than the map currently in the main introduction. Knightplex (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

That was the map being used in the lead many years ago, when I was editing Wikipedia without an ID, but somebody put up the present map and argued that this a political map and so, is superior. Now, I believe in consensus and feel that you or anyone else can call for a vote to determine which map should be in the Lead.-Dona-Hue (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Knightplex. Also, the 1758 map appears to more clearly display the territory controlled by the Maratha empire vis-a-vis the 1760 map. --Coconut1002 (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Coconut1002, Knightplex, Bajirao1007 and others who want to change the Maratha Empire's political map - please call for a vote if you want to have your way. I also would like to see a bigger map, personally, but I think it is against the rules of wikipedia!—Dona-Hue (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

If the map in the introduction is changed, please add the political map, named "File:India1760 1905.jpg" to the section where the other maps are shown. Thanks!—Dona-Hue (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I feel this map covers a greater area and is best to be used. I will not object to any of you putting that in the introduction, but I will not do it myself as I seem to be getting warnings for everything I do here at wikipedia (see my talk page)!—Dona-Hue (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

That map, besides being ugly and user-generated, is also inaccurate in terms of the territory under the EIC. It has also been edited by someone to remove all mention of the Safavids. And has anyone actually verified what the "Historical Atlas by Raman, Ranjoy" is and if the image accurately represents the map in it? The map is the only submission of a user named Ghruhel on Commons.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Cpt.a.haddock, What about using Image:India-1760-map.jpg in the introduction as it is used in the article on the Marathas?—Dona-Hue (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dona-Hue: ~~Both are from the same source; 1911 appears to be a corrected version of the 1905 map.~~--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

That said, I cannot find the source that confirms that the 1911 map is indeed from 1911 or that a 1911 edition of this atlas existed. The 1905 map is confirmed on this page.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The more I look at it, the more it looks photoshopped. Comparing the two maps side by side clearly shows the remains of the original Mysore colouring from the 1905 map. The Western Ghats and the Portuguese colony have been incompetently wiped out and there's a marked discoloration in the yellow. The rivers in Mysore are wonky and the DE in Deccan uses a different font. The 1911 map appears to be a fake.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

And to confirm this, the 1911 map was uploaded by John Mckalie who's a sock of Mrpontiac1. The same user also uploaded another photoshopped image of a Maratha map on the same day which was noticed by Utcursch in 2013.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock:, so I hope you can remove the photoshopped images from this article as well as the article on the Marathas. Thanks!—Dona-Hue (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Utcursch has already taken care of it.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 20:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock:-

@Utcursch: an I.P. has been repeatedly removing the Maratha Empire map in the introduction/ lead, that is, "File:India1760 1905.jpg" and putting "File:Maratha 1320.jpeg" in its place. Please lock this article for editing by I.P.s'. Thanks!—Dona-Hue (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I've undid the IP's edit. Seems to be inactive, so no need for a block right now. utcursch | talk 14:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock:,

@Utcursch: an I.P. has been repeatedly removing the Maratha Empire map in the introduction/ lead, that is, "File:India1760 1905.jpg" and putting "File:Maratha 1320.jpeg" in its place. When it is semi-protected and locked for editing by I.P.s'. the I.P. uses the account of Bajirao1007 for the same purpose. I hope you can warn that user and undo his edit here. Thanks!—Dona-Hue (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

On the subject of the Maratha Empire's map

The map "File:India1760 1905.jpg" seems wholly false in depicting the Maratha Empire's size at its height. Gujarat isn't even included and it completely ignores the Maratha territories won after the North-Western expansion (Punjab/Nwfp/Kashmir) prior to Panipat. I also question if the Kingdom of Mysore was that large prior to Tipu Sultan. The map also doesn't include the fact that the Nizam of Hyderabad paid "chauth" to the Marathas, many Ottoman Empire maps for example include vassal states and tributaries but this map does not for the Marathas. I understand that its only used because its within a book outside of Wikipedia but certain sources can be false so shouldn't that at least be noted? Bajirao1007 (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maratha Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20070609074111/http://historion.net/j.biddulph-pirates-malabar-englishwoman-india/page-27.html to http://historion.net/j.biddulph-pirates-malabar-englishwoman-india/page-27.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Legacy Section

The section of Legacy currently talks only about Maratha Navy. This is not correct since naval legacy is just one piece of the legacy and not the only thing under legacy. And there is a separate article for Maratha Navy anyways. I am re-writing the section and articulating the footprint left by the Maratha Kingdom. Kindly review and suggest changes if any, but please do not change abruptly without discussing here.

User:Amit20081980 talk 05:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I know that Maratha principalities were British vassals post 1818; I have thought about it. Yet I included Maratha contributions towards society, literature, art etc. (post 1818 CE) for the below reason:

The word legacy implies leftover or remnant or footprint. Now, the Maratha contributions (such as their palaces, temples) although built under British suzerainty, still is a Maratha leftover. The British rule (1818 to 1947) was a federal one (just like today's India) with semi-autonomy to the princely states. I understand that the article is about Maratha Empire which ended in 1818 but post-1818 what remains is nothing but leftover or legacy. I don't think date of building a palace is that important as long as the palace was built during the semi-autonomous reign of a Maratha king.

Let me know your thoughts

User:Amit20081980 talk 12:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Amit20081980, All the art and beautiful palaces were built with funds obtained under British protection.Even the architecture of many palaces such as the Kolhapur new palace is of Indo-Saracenic style with elements of European Gothic architecture.You can put all this under legacy on the pages of the individual states but putting it under Maratha empire is rewriting history.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Initial Map Section

The initial Map in this page is blatantly wrong . It is a really bad edit and just paints the entire India as yellow or under the Marathas . I have checked various verifiable maps of India during 1760s which the current map claims to be of including this one from maps of India by Colbeck from the archives of University of Texas ^[1], and all of them point that this map is erroneous. Any attempts to remove this map is being constantly thwarted by continuous editing by un-named users . Please help Subratadass (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I have reinstated the original map of this page and I personally see nothing wrong with it.

Any editor wanting to change it, please discuss it here and obtain WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

References

^ http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/colbeck/india_1760.jpg

It seems to be that this current map is wrong as well. Gujarat or Punjab is not included. Neither is the fact that certain independent territories such as the Nizam, or the Nawab of Bengal, paid Chauth. They too could be considered tributaries or vassals in a way, many maps include vassals such as the Ottoman Empire map. Bajirao1007 (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Another issue with the map is that the Indus Valley region is just colored in and not shown as belonging to any state. Which was not the case as it was played off between the Durrani’s, Marathas, and later Sikhs. It quite literally shows a state which never existed in that area. Bajirao1007 (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Maratha flag

I have reverted the recent addition of Maratha and Mughal flags to the infobox of the article. For the issues with the Mughal flag, see this discussion. For the Maratha flag, the source cited in the most recent edit was Maratha Confederacy: A Study in Its Origin and Development . I don't have access to the complete book, but a google search does not find any hits for "Bhagwa Dhwaj" in the work. Can ชาวไทย please cite the relvant passages from page 128 of the book?

More broadly, the issue with wikipedians indiscriminately adding flags to historical articles is that these regimes often used many different standards, flags etc for different purposes and at different time periods. Flattening all that based on some painting or passing mention in a book is WP:OR and a disservice to our readers, especially since these claims on wikipedia tend to propogate across the internet and end up in sources that are later used as citations. Abecedare (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

In the book (Which I don't own) have mention the about the Flag in the Page 128-131 The description of The flag is at the page 131 "While the Jaripatka was know as Nishan Jaripatka, the plain ochre coloured flag was, it appears, know as bhagva zenda. It was raised on the forts in Maharashtra which came under the authority of the Pashva" --ชาวไทย (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2019

This edit request to Maratha Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under the header confederacy and then major events, the first event states the year 1969 which should probably be 1669 212.182.181.182 (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for picking up the error. It has now been fixed.--Chewings72 (talk) 10:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Maratha Empire map of 1759

The map provided in Wikipedia page is not showing the Northwest Conquest undertook by Raghunathrao in 1758. Kshitij patil 22 (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Extent of the Maratha Empire map

@Vibes1891: Would you please stop adding the Gajanan Bhaskar Mehendale map to this page? The map is from a self-published book and is something that person has just thrown together. Instead, please find maps from well reputed academic scholars. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 20:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: So a well renowned Marathi Historian's map of the Maratha Empire, is dismissed because he is not a White, English academic Scholar. The map currently put up by you is a British depiction. Why does a person have to look at the Maratha empire from a British lens? Also the Book he published is well reknowned, give it a read before judging his books with your prejudiced, racist mindset! You have cited no technical grounds to remove the map, nor pointed out any inaccuracy. It is well attested, with sources in his book that The Maratha Empire stretched from Afghanistan to Tamil Nadu. Which is also written in the Wiki page! But the Map you put up only shows the part until Peshawar, Pakistan. The British map is highly inaccurate, I'm putting up the corrected Indian Map. Thanks.

@Vibes1891: You need to show that Mehendale is a well renowned historian. The book you link to appears to be self-published and is not acceptable as a source. --regentspark (comment) 15:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Do your basic homework before making such baseless allegations! His book is not "Self published".If you had cared to read the citations I so painfully added, you would have noticed that I mentioned the publisher's name as well, it is "Param Mitra Publications" here is the link to the publisher's website. http://parammitrapublications.com/product/shivaji-his-life-and-times/ Also he is a renowned Marathi historian in India, not in the English World! He has been in the Marathi Wikipedia page since ages, check it out(If you even know Marathi,that is). You rejecting him is like rejecting a black historian from Africa just because he's not an English academic! Just because I put in a Marathi source for the Marathi Empire and not a British source doesn't mean that the source is invalid! I'm yet to hear a sound technical inaccuracy from you. Stop this intellectual imperialism!

@Vibes1891: If you could, please link to his academic affiliation(s) so that we can verify his credentials. Please note that historical information must be sourced to peer-reviewed academic sources.--regentspark (comment) 14:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism by altetendekrabbe

I understand that someone editing this article was a sock. However, this does not mean that some of my contributions should also be reverted. This is NOT right. Can some help stop altetendekrabbe from doing this. Thank you.

Map

“File:MarathaEmpire1759” is not WP:SYNTH. The map is illustrated based off of its source and is therefore not original work. The current map is outdated, and factually incorrect, as regions such as the Northwest and Gujarat are not included.

Illustrating exact claims by the author does not constitute original work as its merely laying out sourced claims pictographically. This is seen on the Ottoman Empire article’s choice of a map, which is not a direct map from a textbook but rather a direct digital illustration of territory explained in written context within its sources.

I will be changing the map one more time. Do not vandalize my changes. Warning. Bajirao1007 (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for actually trying to discuss this. However, you need to both show that the map is actually in the book (and not based on your interpretation of what the book says) as well as explain why the author is reliable (for example, is he/she an academic historian?). Otherwise, the map is either WP:OR or not sourced to a reliable source. Finally, when you find yourself reverted, you should seek consensus before edit warring. --regentspark (comment) 00:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I made some major changes. The lede looks like personal opinions of user Souniel Yadav. I've also added more contents about the Maratha rape and atrocities on Bengalis. Thank you--Vitalpantaryan (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Vitalpantaryan:, indeed it's a major change. But, ...Hndu and Muslim Bengalis is considered to be among the deadliest massacres in Indian history. isin't it too subjective and probably WP:OR, as your source doesn't discribe it in line with your stated opinion. Santoshdts (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

And and many women and children gang raped again is not discussed by your source (Marshall, 2006) it seems like OR, Santoshdts (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello I'll have a look about the atrocities later, but the sources (which are even unreliable) do not mention about liberating. Looks like that user put them on his own words.I am going to change it for now, and if you agree we can remove the entire phrase. Thanks--Vitalpantaryan (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"Liberated" is not a neutral phrase

"The Marathas are credited to a large extent for liberating most of the Indian subcontinent from Mughal rule." sentence of the introduction should be reworked to be more neutral. Proposed example: "The Marathas are credited to a large extent for ending Mughal rule over most of the Indian subcontinent." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.3.89 (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

"The Marathas are credited to a large extent for ending Mughal rule over most of the Indian subcontinent" is the correct information Hbsalvi (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Bangladesh in infobox

Maratha territory only stretched upto Orissa in the east and never included any part of what is now Bangladesh. Please provide a source before adding Bangladesh or Bengal again to the list of Maratha territory. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Does wikipedia have not limit to the number of links in further reading

Does Wikipedia have No Limit to the number of links in further reading section? Abbasquadir (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Further reading is not a required section and should be used sparingly. This one, as you seem to point out, is way too long. I've removed a couple or entries that are not just about the Marathas and suggest, if you have the time that you prune it down further (perhaps 3-4 comprehensive books/articles are more than enough). You can, of course, just boldly remove the entire section! --RegentsPark (comment) 21:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I will. Thank you. Abbasquadir (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Abbasquadir Hello, I have reverted your recent edit made in goodfaith by merging Further reading and Bibliography sections of the article. The Bibliography section in the article lists the sources referred in the article, where as the Further reading section lists the sources which can be referred for more information on the topic. Hence, both the sections serve different purposes in the articles in wikipedia. Best Santoshdts^[TalkToMe] 10:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Abbasquadir As Santoshdts says, the bibliography contains sources that are cited in the article. Further reading contains material that is not cited by the article and is meant to elaborate on the topic. We don't really need a further reading section so you can remove it if you like but don't merge it with the bibliography. At the minimum, I would trim it down to 4 - 6 sources that are mainly about the history of the Maratha Empire. The issue, as always, is that the sources in further reading are not checked for reliability and neutrality as well as the ones in the bibliography so my preference will be to get rid of them. But I don't know enough about the subject so will leave that to you. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Regentspark Alright , I shall do it. I chose andlet be 6 important one's. Thanks again. Abbasquadir (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Internecine conflicts

The Maratha period has been full of internecine conflicts over succession (e.g Soyrabai and Sambhaji, Tarabai and Shahu, murder of Narayanrao), or rivalries between leaders of the confederacy (e.g. Shinde and Holkar, Peshwa and Gaikwad, Holkar and Peshwa). The enemies of the Marathas ( the Mughals, the Nizam, the East India Company) took advantage of these conflicts to further their own objectives. Should there be a separate section on this? Comments, suggestions please. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Chhatrapati?

The article needs some explanation for the name / honorific "Chhatrapati".

Is this a name or an honorific? I see that the Maratha emperors all have this attribution, which makes me think it must be an honorific: so that needs to be explained. If not, if it is merely a name, that needs explanation as well.

'Chattrapati' is a honorific. It means 'Emperor' or 'Lord Of The World'.

Chaatrapati (छत्रपती)is honorific which literally means Master (owner) of Chhatra ( Umbrela). An umbrela is a symbol for kingdom and owner of it is called Pati.

Also, "The descendants of Venkoji Rao speak Thanjavur Marathi" line looks so ODD in the introduction. Can this line be deleted and maybe put in some section below? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.125.140.222 (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it. Thanks! --RegentsPark (comment) 21:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2020

This edit request to Maratha Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change

The Marathas came into conflict with Tipu Sultan and his Kingdom of Mysore, leading to the Maratha–Mysore War in 1785. The war ended in 1787 with the Marathas being defeated by Tipu Sultan.

To

The Marathas came into conflict with Tipu Sultan and his Kingdom of Mysore, leading to the Maratha–Mysore War in 1785. The war ended in 1787 with the Marathas being victorious over Tipu Sultan.^[1]

The original statement says that Marathas were defeated by Tipu Sultan and the Reference page mentions Treaty of Gajendra between Marathas and Tipu Sultan where Tipu Sultan of Mysore was obligated to pay 4.8 million rupees as a war cost to the Marathas, and an annual tribute of 1.2 million rupees. In addition to returning all the territory captured by Hyder Ali. Anurenuthokada (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Amkgp 💬 15:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Amkgp.

Thanks for the review.

The reliable source you are mentioning about is one of the Wikipedia page itself. Which I had marked in my request for change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratha%E2%80%93Mysore_War

Marathas being victorious over Tipu Sultan.^[2]

Look at the section called OutCome on the above mentioned wikipedia page. It talks about treaty of Gajendra. I have posted the content below

Maratha-Mysore war ended in April 1787, following the finalizing of treaty of Gajendragad, as per which, Tipu Sultan of Mysore was obligated to pay 4.8 million rupees as a war cost to the Marathas, and an annual tribute of 1.2 million rupees. In addition to returning all the territory captured by Hyder Ali,[12][13] Tipu also agreed to pay 4 year's arrears of the tribute, which Mysore owed to the Marathas, through Hyder Ali.[14]

What I was pointing out was inconsistency accross the wikipedia pages. On one page they say Marathas were defeated by Tipu Sultan and on the other there is an elobarate explaination of the Treaty of Gajendra and defeate of Tipu Sultan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anurenuthokada (talk • contribs) 19:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I've removed Maratha victory from the article you link to. I took a look at the sources and it appears that Tipu won the wars but sued for peace because he wanted to focus on the English forces. Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency.--RegentsPark (comment) 20:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello RegentsPark

The Battle of Gajendragad was fought in June 1786, during the Maratha-Mysore War. An army of the Maratha Empire led by Tukoji Rao Holkar, defeated the army of Tipu Sultan and captured the town and fortress at Gajendragad. Mysore was obligated to pay 4.8 million rupees as a war cost to the Marathas, and an annual tribute of 1.2 million rupees.[23] The treaty of Gajendragad signed after the battle ended the Maratha-Mysore conflict.

Battles Involving the Maratha Empire

So, my request is that instead of removing the phrase Marathas defeated TipuSultan, You kindly reconsider my suggestion for the modifications on the page as I suggested previously. And it is really difficult to rationalize the kind of victory in which the winner decided to pay annual tribute of 1.2 million rupees and also pays the cost of the war? This payment itself proves on whose side victory effectively was. --Anurenuthokada (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Why "citation needed" for /Known for their mobility, the Marathas were able to consolidate their territory during the Mughal–Maratha Wars and later controlled a large part of the Indian subcontinent/?

The citation for this is the same as for "The empire at its peak stretched from Tamil Nadu[12] in the south, to Peshawar (modern-day Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan[13][note 2]) in the north, and Orissa & western Bengal up to the Hooghly River,[15] in the east." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.125.140.222 (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2020

This edit request to Maratha Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Saini, A.K; Chand, Hukam (n.d.). History of Midieval India. New Delhi: Anmol Publications. ISBN 978-81-261-2313-1." This source is misspelled, and should read "Medieval". The books is also misspelled in google books, but the title for the ISBN number is with correct spelling. Mattias Kling (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mattias Kling:

Done Silikonz (💬│🖋) 07:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Why is Shahu consistently portrayed as a "titular" head of the Marathas on Wikipedia pages despite authentic old British records and Daftars clearly showing that not to be the case?

Here is one detailed chapter in the "Journal of the Bombay branch of the Royal Asiatic Society" written in 1902 and now available via Google's digitization efforts.

https://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/asiatic-society-of-bombay/journal-of-the-bombay-branch-of-the-royal-asiatic-society-volume-20-goo/page-46-journal-of-the-bombay-branch-of-the-royal-asiatic-society-volume-20-goo.shtml

There are other sources that also corroborate this information, particularly from authors such as the great Mahadev Govind Ranade.

If Wikipedia authors can make this important correction, that would remove a lot of misconceptions that people nowadays have about Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj of Satara. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.50.231.5 (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Spelling mistake in first section "Shahji Rake Bhosle"....Looks really bad and needs to be corrected.

Fixed. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Indic scripts

Indic scripts (and any other native script) are not to be added/proscribed in any India-related/specific articles. This is a WP:MOS policy (necessary to be followed) and has been reached through multiple discussions, all of which is mentioned at WP:INDICSCRIPTS. There are no exceptions to this.

A [now blocked] sockpuppet initially added scripts (along with other OR stuff) to this page a little while ago as he had done on multiple articles. I removed them under the said policy. But Bramhesh Patil egregiously restored the scripts citing 'disruption' of all things to boot. When notified of the policy, he again opprobriously restored the scripts and incorrectly mentioned the policy to be avoidance (whatever that means) and justified 'limited' use.

I hardly think that what disruption and MOS/policy are, is understood by the user here. INDICSCIPTS is to be followed in toto, no exceptions [as clearly outlined on the policy page] which includes this as well. Will, further invite Ab207 and Fylindfotberserk for elaboration. Gotitbro (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Gotitbro here. "Exceptions are articles on the script itself, articles on a language that uses the script, and articles on texts originally written in a particular script.". Going against consensus that resulted into this guideline is considered disruptive for which IDs/IPs got blocked before. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Correct. There are few a exceptions to NOINDICSCRIPT but this is clearly not one among them. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

But please remember that Indic scripts are prohibited only in the lead and infoboxes perWP:INDICSCRIPTS.This document does not say anything about use of the scripts in other sections. Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Gotitbro and Fylindfotberserk about the edits as they were made in the lead sections by Bramhesh Patil.LukeEmily (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Maratha and Warrior

The Lede reads,"The Marathas were a Marathi-speaking warrior group from the western Deccan Plateau (present-day Maharashtra) who rose to prominence by establishing Hindavi Swarajya (meaning "self-rule of Hindus")". Does it mean all Marathi speaking people belonged to the "warrior group", or just a specific community? I believe Clarification is necessary if we want to keep this word. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with you Jonathansammy. The wording is confusing.LukeEmily (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2022

This edit request to Maratha Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Territories which comprised the Maratha Empire 117.248.253.211 (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Map of the Maratha Empire

Its my humble request to please change the map of the Maratha Empire in the main box, as it was larger than shown in the page. Please do it as soon as possible. 117.206.165.239 (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2022

This edit request to Maratha Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can I write something about the Maratha Empire? Jude Brian Lardera 2005 (talk) 06:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2022

This edit request to Maratha Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2402:8100:3002:1564:1:1:DC89:978D (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I want to change empire area

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I removed a section from this article

A recent edit has been made, where a section created about "destruction caused by maratha empire" and a loads of things were written with poor or fake references. This is absolutely hondorous and unprofessional to add such a section to this particular article while mughal empire or delhi sultane doesn't consist of such article, even though atrocities against Hindus and temple destruction was a norm in those times 2409:4062:2207:E477:0:0:520:C0AD (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

About destruction and desecration section

Most of the paragraphs written are basically copy pasted from news articles with very weak references..And why there is no destruction and desecration section added in Mughal empire article, since many temple including destruction of kashi viswanath temple is well known?? 2409:4062:2207:E477:0:0:520:C0AD (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

User created vs well sourced flags

@Bhuvii9: Please note a couple of things. First, everything on Wikipedia must be reliably sourced and this includes maps. Please don't replace a sourced map with a user created one. Regarding your comment here, the reason it says user created because, as it should be obvious from one look at the map, it is user created. If you can't distinguish between a user created map and a verifiable one, you should probably think twice about working with maps on Wikipedia. Second, you cannot refer to content inside the page to justify content in a map. Maps are precise instruments and loosely translating text into the defense for a user create map is not acceptable. At this point, with your constant reverts, you're heading well into disruptive edit territory. RegentsPark (comment) 15:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Other South Asian Languages

I think it’s better that we refrain from using the term South Asian as this is too broad. Languages like Pashto, Nepali and Dzongkha were not spoken in the Maratha Empire all of which are major South Asian languages. AtishT20 (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The Maratha Empire invaded territory outside modern day India (Such as some areas in pakistan and bangladesh), Hence South Asian is a better term to Use here. SKAG123 (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Extent of the Empire

The Maratha Empire once had its capital at Jinji, which is in modern day Tamil Nadu. However the map does not show this nor does it show its true extent AtishT20 (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead and domination

Hello fellow editor @SKAG123, I noticed that you recently reverted one of my edits and not wanting to edit-war I opened this discussion. I do understand that the Marathas did control a portion of south-west India (specifically an exclave around Tanjore) and portion of eastern India (parts of Orissa), but it still didn't dominate "much of the Indian subcontinent", which seems like an overstatement. It controlled only insignificant portions of southern and eastern India and also none of modern-day Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka which make a large part of the subcontinent. "Controlled much of the Indian subcontinent" is a big overstatement. PadFoot2008 (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The Maratha empire was not just limited to northern india as they controlled other parts of india (they were actually based in western India) They were the largest Empire in the India Subcontinent in the late 18th century to early 19th century (based on what is stated in the article)

Therefore “controlled much of the Indian subcontinent” or “ controlled large portions of the subcontinent” is appropriate SKAG123 (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this is just a small misunderstanding. I never said northern India, I said North India, which in its most popular sense, includes western, central and eastern India.

"Much of the subcontinent" would mean almost all of the subcontinent which it didn't control. By North India, I mean it in its primary sense, which includes central, western and eastern India as well. PadFoot2008 (talk) 07:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The Marathas also conquered large pertains of Deccan and Thanjavur. They also Conquered parts of modern day Pakistan. Maybe "Large portion of the Subcontinent" would be a better term. SKAG123 (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 All right, I'm adding "large portions of the Indian subcontinent". But this ought to be discussed further. Thanjavur was a part of the empire for only a brief time and was lost during the Deccan Wars and was certainly not a part of it during the mid-eighteenth century. Its troops did fight in North-Western parts of the Indian subcontinent but never incorporate or conquer it into their empire. Those territories were a part of the Sikh Confederacy since their independence in 1748 from the Mughal Empire and were aided by the Marathas in conquering further territories from the Afghans but the Marathas never made it a part of their empire. The Sikh Confederacy was an independent entity between 1748 and 1799 in modern-day Pakistan and north-west India. PadFoot2008 (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I never knew that the northwestern part was Sikh territory. In the Maratha times there used to be a slogan describing their extent "From Attock to Cuttack" So I think it's a part of maratha territory Bhuvii9 (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Map in infobox

Proposal withdrawn by the nominator because of lack of support. Can be seen at the bottom. (non-admin closure) Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The current map in infobox depicts that the Rajput states were a part of the Maratha Confederacy and mis-labels them as "Mahratta States". The Rajput states were not part of the Maratha Confederacy and most contemporary maps showed them to be separate. Such as these ones:

It's my suggestion that we use the third map (India map 1700 1792.jpg), it is much more detailed and shows the Rajput states as separate entities from the Maratha Confederacy. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

[Nominator Support] per nomination. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose various sources (cited in the body of this article) state that the Marathas had at least indirect control over the Rajput states at their peak. SKAG123 (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with SKAG123.The Map of India during British rule has British territories as well as Native territories (e.g. Rajput states or Hydrabad state).Although nominally independent the native states were part of the British empire.In a similar manner, during 18th century maratha rule, there were tribute states around India that paid share of their revenue ( mostly a quarter or Chauth of the proceeedings ) to the Marathas.Having said that, all the big and small powers during the 18th century ruled in the name of the totally powerless Mughal emperor.My two cents.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - First two out of the three maps provided by the nominator itself contradicts him. It seems he has misunderstood the maps. The word Rajputs there doesn't show that it is their territory. It shows the name of the place just like Bihar and Bengal. In the all the maps we can see that Bihar and Bengal are shown British Territories but yet the name of the place is shown. Similar is the case with Maratha and Rajput. It is a Rajput land under Maratha Empire just like land of Bihar and Bengal under British occupation. Also to see the markings of the top two maps. It is marked as Maratha Territory/Confederacy but with Rajputs it is just written Rajput(s). Try to understand the difference. If still some confusion read Secondary school history books. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. I do not see what secondary school education has to with this. Marathas were not any significant power to have their chapter in any CBSE textbook, as far as I can remember. And please do look at the map carefully, there's a boundary between Maratha and Rajput territory not a regional name. Anyways I am withdrawing my proposal. PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment by nominator: I am hereby withdrawing my proposal due to clearly visible lack of support. PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prominent mention of Bajirao and his caste

Caste mongering is evidently a prevailing problem on Wikipedia with India-related content and nothing exemplifies this more than prominent mentions of Bajirao and his Chitpavan Brahmin caste in the lead paragraph of the article. Not sure when this was added, however, the blanket statement that Bajirao created the empire is a myth mostly propagated by contemporary upper caste authors and folks influenced by the 2016 Bollywood movie. Mahadev Govind Ranade in his seminal book in 1914 'The Rise of Maratha Power' clearly details Shahu's pivotal role in the expansion of the empire. He managed the rivalry between Raghuji Bhosale, who controlled large parts of Central India and Bajirao. Shahu recalled and deployed commanders and even the great generals of North India and close associates of Bajirao such as Holkar and Shinde held deep reverence for Shahu. Bajirao deserves to be known as great but it is curious how the article uses selective references to justify a hyperbolic statement that seems clearly designed to glorify a caste. Urging the main authors and editors of the article to remove this statement. 2605:8D80:1398:8272:9D5F:6F87:6110:5D8F (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit it then and make it better. Witchilich (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your extremely useful suggestion. Tried it before writing the talk post but given the edit war that ensued, it was best to put an explanation over here. 2001:569:7F49:2B00:5C19:988D:8641:A10B (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 31 March 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Maratha Empire → Maratha Confederacy – Based on This Ngram search Confederacy is the more commonly used name, especially post 1995 1995. The Marathas were a Confederacy rather than an empire at their peak so this title makes sense. SKAG123 (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose – According to information in the article, they were at their peak in 1758 and the confederacy began after the death of Madhavrao I in 1772. So the Marathas were an empire at their peak. The period from 1674-1772 is larger than the period from 1772-1818, so the Marathas were an empire for longer than they were a confederacy. Also, I do not think the Ngram search establishes a common name. The ratio at its maximum is approximately 3:2 post-1995. Arnav Bhate (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

More recent data from Ngram suggests that Maratha Empire has become more common compared to Maratha Confederacy. Arnav Bhate (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - As @Arnav Bhate rightly said, empire were for a large amount of time and so this title justifies it. Curious man123 (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Date of End of the Maratha Empire

What date could be considered the end of Maratha rule? Peshwa Baji Rao II's surrender on 3 June 1818? End of the Third-Anglo Maratha War on 9 April 1819? Prakashs27 (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding the map of Maratha Empire in 1758 and removing the map of 1760.

Maratha Empire was at peak in 1758, but the map there is of 1760. The map of 1760 is contradictig the statement below it saying "Maratha Empire at it its peak in 1760". Therefore, I'm the replacing the map of 1760 to 1758. The map is available in Wikipedia commons. 27.97.236.117 (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

At least now that the page has been indef protected (by me), you can't force your preference anymore using multiple IPs. Now you'll need to actually take the time to write out a convincing argument, substantively explaining why you consider it to be contradictig. And doing so without insults, and while also proofreading for intelligibility — or even this avenue will be out. El_C 17:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The first edit had a map from 1760, but the description below mentioned 1758. So, I replaced the map with one from 1758 when the Maratha Empire was at its peak. However, some editors reverted it without reason, and one user recently changed the description from 1758 to 1760 along with the statement. I'm simply questioning what problem editors have with showing the peak of the Maratha Empire in the 1758 map. 2402:8100:384E:3F7C:AC52:E91E:48D4:A649 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

So here's what you could do. Go the artilce's revision history (link) and find those editors who reversed you on the map. Copy their user names into the following: {{re|user name1|user name2|etc.}} and submit that text here, which will WP:PING them. If you don't get a response from anyone in, say, a week, I'll personally re-add your preferred changes. El_C 17:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and sorry for being rude. 2402:8100:384E:3F7C:AC52:E91E:48D4:A649 (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Arnav Bhate and An Asphalt: 2402:8100:384E:3F7C:AC52:E91E:48D4:A649 (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

My objection with the map is that it shows Maratha control of Mysore in 1758, which was not the case. Arnav Bhate (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, it shows numerous other things wrong apart from Mysore. It is occupying large parts of the Hyderabad state which is completely incorrect. It is occupying southern Oudh province which it didn't. It is occupying the Carnatic province, which it also didn't. It is vastly exaggerated. Lastly, northwest India was only briefly under joint Maratha-Sikh military occupation during the Afghan war. The map doesn't acknowledge that and tries to make out that the territories were annexed by the Marathas. Also it is user-made map which are very untrustworthy and unnecessary especially that we have so many genuine contemporary maps. PadFoot2008 11:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Indeed, user made maps are generally problematic, because of their un-reliability. And for a C-topic such as this, often is accompanied by an agenda (usually an ethno-national one) that seeks to go outside the modern historiography. It's fine to argue what the historiography does or does not say—like those two years (1758 to 1760) being pivotal or at least dramatic in some fashion—but it's difficult to justify a user-made map over one from a published source. At the very least, there would need to be a clear consensus that it ought to be preferred over a map that's from a published source. Thank you. El_C 17:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

They are talking without giving any source. The map of 1758 is also attached in various articles of Wikipedia page. See this https://mr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A0%E0%A4%BE_%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9C%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF 2402:8100:3854:C3E2:538A:CA8A:4EF:F131 (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

That map is not present on the page you have linked but a similarly bad map is present. Also, it is up to you to provide citations, not us. Arnav Bhate (talk) 06:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure np. FYI there are ways to request assistance with dispute resolution. A request like 3rd opinion, for example, as the name implies, requests a 3rd opinion from an uninvolved editor. So good to keep in mind in case of any future issues. See WP:DR for the the dispute resolution policy itself. HTH. Regards, El_C 04:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 17 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Confederacy. 3 !votes were negated for sockpuppetery. Result remains the same. The participants leaned towards favoring the term confederacy as the entity was a collection of states even though both empire and confederacy are widely used in sources. (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 09:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Maratha Empire → Maratha Confederacy – The Maratha state had been a confederation of some sort for much of its existence from at least 1721 when the Baroda State was founded and 1732 when Indore and Gwalior States were founded till 1818. The Maratha state during the Deccan wars under Shivaji and his descendents was not in the slightest an "empire", rather a quasi-state or rebel kingdom from 1674 till 1707. Besides in most non-biased scholarly sources the Maratha realm has been referred to as the "Maratha Confederacy" or "Maratha States". (Look at the infobox map itself. It says "Maratha States".) Calling it an empire is an overly biased PoV. "Maratha Confederacy" should be used per WP:NPOVTITLE. PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Move: Support by nominator. Also pinging @SKAG123 who originally put forward this suggestion. PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose: See Ngram, Maratha Empire is more common in scholarly sources. It is clearly then the WP:COMMONNAME. Add your statements to the article while citing reliable sources otherwise they are just original research. Arnav Bhate (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

That's because the English word was "Mahratta" not "Maratha" which is more recent rendering. Check this [10]. You can clearly see that the Confederacy was way, way more popular. Besides Maratha Empire has got only slightly more common very recently, such recent changes are not usually used to decide names in Wikipedia. Also WP:COMMONNAME is not the supreme parameter to decide names. It is very often abandoned when their are better and more accurate options. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that you very conveniently left out Mahratta Empire, which was more common, especially in contemporary sources. Arnav Bhate (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Move: N-gram graphs are not the sole determinant influencing the decision. "The New Cambridge History of India: The Marathas" does not refer to the Marathas as the "Maratha Empire" at any point. Both the infobox and the article's content are centered on the Bhonsle state of the Marathas of Satara. Even if we insist on labeling it as an "empire," who would be considered the emperor? The Marathas of Satara did not hold imperial authority over the entire region.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 13:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The Emperor in Raigad, and later Satara, did hold authority until 1749, when Shahu died. After that, it was the Peshwa. The confederacy began in 1772. I am basing this on the article. If you do not agree then find sources and edit the article. Arnav Bhate (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The Peshwa holding de facto power for a short period doesn't change anything. There were individual Maratha states within the Confederacy since at least 1721. See Baroda State for example. Additionally, the chhatrapati (not emperor) held only nominal power and no real authority. The Peshwa too didn't hold much real power and had power only over his own dominions which later became the Bombay Province and the Central Provinces after being annexed. Earlier on he did have some power and respect but no real authority to govern territories within the Confederacy which were not his own, like Baroda or Nagpur. PadFoot2008 (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Proposal: Move to 'Maratha State' instead. Neither 'Empire' nor 'Confederacy' seem suitable, given that the type of government changed multiple times. The word 'State' does not convey what the type of government was and seems to be quite used [11] [12] in scholarly sources as well. Arnav Bhate (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
That can't be. You forget, there were multiple states within the Maratha Confederacy. Look at the infobox map again, it says Maratha States. So states like Nagpur, Gwalior, Baroda were also each a "Maratha State". "Maratha States" might work but again post-1818 successor states like Satara were also Maratha states. PadFoot2008 (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Maratha state as this typically refers to the smaller states/kingdoms under the Confederacy/Empire. I would Support Maratha Confederacy or Maratha Empire as the Marathas were a large confederacy at their peak. SKAG123 (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment Just because the Maratha government was decentralized doesn't mean the article can't be titled Maratha Empire. For example the Holy Roman Empire is also a similar situation. The WP:COMMONNAME especially at the peak (1758-1818) should determine the name of the article SKAG123 (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It was the Maratha Confederacy at its peak time 1758 to 1818. Also the Holy Roman Empire was never ever called the "Holy Roman Confederacy", that's undisputed. PadFoot2008 (talk) 05:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

*Move: per nomination. It is inappropriate, and no sources other than early Indian/Marathi records during British Raj, and works influenced by them records the state as "Maratha Empire".--DeepstoneV (talk) Blocked sock 12:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Neutral It was not an empire in a conventional sense, but historically, the entity or the entities have been grouped under empire or confederacy. Google scholar search on the two terms post 1947 gives a much larger number of hits with empire rather than confederacy.I am OK with either term but not state, any newly coined term, or Maratha Swarajya. The latter should be restricted to the territories under Shivaji's control over which Shahu was later granted Sardeshmukhi rights in 1719 by the Mughals.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy, I think you replied at the wrong spot. I think you meant to oppose "Maratha State" right? Here you are replying to Deepstone. PadFoot2008 (talk)

Sorry my mistake.I did not properly read the section heading. My vote between Confederacy or Empire would be Neutral, or either. ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy, you voted "Oppose" here. You said you want to be neutral. You need to change it to "Comment" (or "Neutral") if you want to be neutral. PadFoot2008 (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this. SKAG123 (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

*Move: The Mordern term Empire is biased for Marathas as it actually was a confederacy of Peshwas, Holkars, Scindias, Gaekwads, and Bhonsales. Hassan Gangu (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

~~I don't know how to write bold letters, someone correct it please Hassan Gangu (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock

Move according to the nomination. Mehedi Abedin 11:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The nom or supporters need to provide some reason based on policy (see WP:TITLE), which they haven't done. Vpab15 (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
@Vpab15, See WP:NPOVTITLE. The current is not neutral. It has a biased PoV. Scholarly sources which are not biased due to nationalist reasons use Maratha Confederacy. As of now both Maratha Confederacy and Empire have more or less same number uses as per ngram. PadFoot2008 06:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
There is no evidence the current title is not neutral. The are lots of empires per List of empires, not all of which have "empire" in their title. Even though it is a somewhat arbitrary decision to call something an empire, it is a word used too widely by historians to make it non-neutral. In any case, the current title is the most common in reliable sources, so it would be acceptable to use a non-neutral title. Vpab15 (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
@Vpab15, Using a non-neutral title is not acceptable per Wikipedia titling policy. Wikipedia policy dictates that the title should be neutral. (See WP:NPOVTITLE) WP:COMMONNAME is not supreme. Besides both the names have near equal usage in the past decades with both surpassing each other in usages every few decades. "Maratha Confederacy" is also very commonly used. Wikipedia suggests that the most commonly name should be used; but other names can be used if the most common name is not very obvious which in this case isn't as both have near equal usages. PadFoot2008 17:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Move: Firstly, as aforementioned the title is NPOV. Usually NPOV wouldn't matter if this was an extremely common name like Alexander the Great, but in this case, it is not a common name. It is interchangeably in sources used as "Maratha Confederacy", or "Maratha Empire". However since sources in a vast amount use the Maratha Confederacy, and that the "Maratha Empire" would be an NPOV title as proposed above, the best solution here would be to move. If you are also more of an expert on Maratha history or have dabbled in that field, you'd know how really divided the Marathas were, hence another reason why Confederacy would be appropriate. Noorullah (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment The article has been stable with the current title ever since it was first created. To make a move, an impetus both per policy and sources would be needed. For policy I do not see an issue of POV, article titles need not conform to historical analysis if sources prefer to use the name regardless. This takes us to sources, as evidenced there is no clear preference among historical or tertiary sources for either confederacy or empire (Britannica for instance has two articles for both [13], [14]). Perhaps then a move to simply Maratha/Marathas should be preferred. But for all this hassle and with no clear incentive, I do not see a problem with staying put with the same title which we have had for more than a decade and a half. Gotitbro (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Britannica also uses Maratha Empire ([15]) for 1674 to 1818. Historically, the Confederacy was formed only in the 1770's after the Panipat defeat [16] (Britannica has a sub-article on Maratha confederacy), after which it was known as "Maratha confederacy". The kingdom was not a confederacy till then. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History [17] uses Maratha Empire from 1674 to 1818. RS do use the term Empire for 1674-1818. Confederacy is used for limited time in the latter history of the kingdom; the WP:POV argument seems flawed.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Britannica nor the other encyclopedias you cited are reliable sources. Regarding tertiary sources on WP:RS: "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited. However, although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact-checking or accuracy. Thus, Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose (except as sources on themselves per WP:SELFSOURCE)."

@Redtigerxyz Noorullah (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Why is Britannica and Oxford Research Encyclopedias, an encyclopedia published by Oxford University Press not be considered "Reputable tertiary sources"? Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Let's have a look at the latest the The New Cambridge history of India:Marathas. That centres around solely the history of Marathas. Nowhere even at once it calls as the "Maratha Empire". Imperial ^[AFCND] 13:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
I can't see how having a book titled "The Marathas"provides any evidence about usage of the term "Maratha Confederacy". Actually, book uses "empire" from the very start ([18]): In this book, Dr Stewart Gordon presents the first comprehensive history of one of the most colourful and least-understood kingdoms of India: the Maratha Empire. Vpab15 (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
@Vpab15, That's the Blurb of the book. How does it became the part of it? Imperial ^[AFCND] 06:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
@ImperialAficionado Well, Stewart N. Gordon has himself used the term Maratha Empire in his thesis The Slow Conquest: Administrative Integration of Malwa into the Maratha Empire, 1720—1760., therefore, I don't see any problem with using "Maratha Empire" either. Jonharojjashi (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Oppose: Per recent Ngram searches, Britannica. and Oxford.. Moreover Gordon (the author of Cambridge The Marathas 1600–1818) has himself preferred Maratha Empire in his thesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonharojjashi (talk • contribs) 13:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Move: As was said, both Maratha Confederacy and Maratha Empire seem to be widely used, and calling this collection of sovereign states an "Empire" is a bit of a long shot, even if it was called so by certain historians. The proposed title does not hold the NPOV issues the current does, and adheres to WP:COMMONNAME as both debated names are widely used. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Move: The current title is not justified as modern day standard calls it a confedracy. The Marathas under Shivaji to Rajaram were a group of rebels. It was only under the time of Sahu that they started imperial expansion so that is the period in which we can call Marathas as Empire but after his death it was confedracy with nominal accecptance of overlordship to Peshwa and and descendants of Shivaji Rawn3012 (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

*Move: According to nomination AdityaNakul (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion regarding Independence of Maratha Rajas

See JL Mehta Advance Study in History of India Pg 87 quoting; Hence the Peshwa emerged as the most powerful man in the Maratha polity and became the de facto ruler of the state while the Maratha king, who bore the royal title of Maratha Chhatrapati, and was formally adorned with all the insignia of royalty, was reduced to the position of titular or symbolic head of the state. Also, PadFoot2008 hasn't provided a counter argument for the previous discussion so I am assuming he is satisfied with my sources or else state any source. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 04:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

It's you job to gain a consensus not mine. You can't assume you have my consensus. You do not not have my support. Gain a consensus first and then make the changes you want. PadFoot2008 04:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

You are the one who is undoing my edit. I have reliable sources to add the information but you don't seem to be satisfied with it so you provide counter claim here for the queries you have or let me add the information as per sources. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

And why can't I add template tell that also? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Because bickering about not being able to add a template which states the problems with the article is less productive than actually discussing and gaining consensus for the changes that need to be made to resolve those problems. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

He is not discussing what to do tell? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The solution: stop editing the article for now. No one's gonna die if there's some information missing from the Maratha Confederacy article on Wikipedia. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

So let an article be as it is because it doesn't suit someone POV and he don't have sources to counter argue my claims this has been evidently clear from the above discussion. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, you're still in the wrong here. Not sure exactly what issue you're referring to, but with the territorial extent discussion, just because the Marathas occupied certain territories doesn't mean they can be included as territories annexed by them. For the Peshwa independence discussion, the wording is what we agreed it should be and any further bickering is nonsensical edit warring. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

See this map, and this is taken from a book that is considered

WP:RS

JL Mehta Advanced Study in History of India pg 170; here is the link https://books.google.co.in/books?id=d1wUgKKzawoC&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA170&dq=Advanced+Study+in+the+History+of+Modern+India+1707-1813++while+encamped+in+karnal&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Now it clearly depicts Maratha boundaries till Khyber Pass (Peshawar) and these areas were considered part of the Maratha Empire as per the statement evident above the map!

Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

[1] "NCERT cuts short Shivaji's journey in std VII textbook". DNA India. Pune: DNA India. May 3, 2013. Retrieved August 9, 2017.

[2] Vincent Arthur Smith (1919), The Oxford History of India, Oxford University Press, page 436

[3] ttp://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/colbeck/india_1760.jpg

[4] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratha%E2%80%93Mysore_War

[5] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratha%E2%80%93Mysore_War

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]